Slashdot Mirror


iTunes: Don't Leave Home With Them

BadDoggie writes "Politech is reporting that your 'ownership' of music purchased from Apple's iTunes isn't what everyone considers ownership. According to the license, 'Apple may use technologies to verify' that you have not 'use[d] or attempt[d] to use the service from outside of the [United States]'. This includes Canada. Apple's 'technologies' delete the bought-and-paid-for files with no refund and no replacement when & if you leave the U.S." Update: 07/25 16:23 GMT by P : The post to Politech says the songs would "disappear," not be deleted; from the context, it seems they were merely unplayable, not deleted. Update: 07/25 21:34 GMT by M : Apple has contacted the guy, and is apparently making him happy. However, the question remains: Apple definitely doesn't want people buying new songs from outside the U.S., but do they intend to generally permit foreign users to reauthorize (in effect, retain access to) the songs they have already purchased? Apple's policy is very unclear on that point.

10 of 725 comments (clear)

  1. I'm first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    And Apple's great service now has a great caveat!

  2. Ah well... by kmak · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    It's always the fine print.. I thought you were different, Apple!

    --

    I'm not the devil.. just his advocate.
    1. Re:Ah well... by daw · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      I can't believe all of these Apple apologists. The point is, the press has been selling the iTunes music store as god's gift to music retailing, the legitimate alternative to free music downloading, with DRM so transparent and unrestrictive that you wont even know it's there.

      But as this story demonstrates even friendly DRM can screw you totally and unexpectedly, and systems that use it are NOT a good deal. Should the guy have read the fine print? Sure. In fact, he shouldn't have had to read the fine print, he should have just known that buying DRM-crippled music (even with that happy Apple gloss) was likely to get him screwed down the line. His story is useful because it demonstrates this point, and demonstrates that the iTunes friendly-DRM model is NOT the answer to the future of music distribution, period. At least not from the customer's perspective.

  3. Please check my slashdot-correctness TIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait
    Okay, I just want to make sure my opinions are "slashdot-correct" before I go around expressing them.

    We hate buymusic.com, because it uses evil DRM, is that right? I want to make sure. Cause it seems like itunes.com uses DRM also. I guess it's okay though because that is an Apple thing. I would never accuse Slashdot people of being hypocrites, of course... I just want to make sure my opinions are "slashdot-correct". There is no way slashdot people are hypocrites.

  4. What's the problem? by CausticWindow · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    How many Americans leave the US in their lifetime? Can't be many, they have no reason too.

    And how many of them again use ITunes? Seems like a no-problem to me.

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
  5. Re:C'mon guys by danila · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    How was that modded insightful? Moving around something you bought is not distribution.

    What Apple is doing here is theft. They are clearly stealing the products that you bought and destroying them. We usually can call such practice vandalism or burglary, but apparently not when a giant soulless corporation does that, especially if it is done in an electronic way.

    Fuck Apple! Fuck RIAA! Fuck music!

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  6. Re:C'mon guys by Ilgaz · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    "Fuck Apple! Fuck RIAA! Fuck music!"

    May I ask how your post got modded insightful too? Just because its Slashdot. Slogan speak is enough to get insightful.

    I bet you aren't even a iMusic subscriber, this would make you more mad but I think of subscribing when they offer service to my country.

  7. Re:Oooh look at mister smartypants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    You're still gay. Stop showing off.

  8. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    You moron. You complete moron. Your stupidity astounds me. Why would someone even think of making a comment like that? Your leaders consistently lie through their teeth to your citizens, and your leaders are controlled by huge corporations with only profits in mind. The United States of America is more violent, dirty, polluted, and ugly than Canada. You have human "rights" but they are not observed. Your country is full of very stupid people. Of course there are several intelligent people in the USA, but they make up the minority by far. Canada will never ever become a "state" of your disgusting country as we have completely different values than you gun-loving terrorists. We believe in peace-keeping, not policing. There is so much more freedom here and there always has been. From the underground railway during slavery, to Vietnam draft dodgers, to same-sex couples wishing to marry now! You are a repressed people. It is really sad. I could go on and on, but you have probably given up reading this by now, because Americans, on average, don't seem to like reading too much. After all, you can get all of your objective OPINIONS from Fox news! Cheers!

  9. Re:Wow! Canada is *outside* the US! by cappadocius · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Re:prescription drug research: There's a lot of that going on up here because of our more generous tax credits for drug R&D, as well as lower costs, which translates into more bang for every research dollar. Remember, applied drug research is conducted by private enterprise, not government.

    Drug research is conducted by companies for the purpose of making profits on drug sales. The amount of profit has to be high enough to justify the research costs.

    In the U.S. drug prices are not regulated, so the drug company will charge whatever they need to in order to get an acceptable level of return on their capital. In Canada, drug prices are artificially low, so that drug companies would not get the acceptable return on their capital if they had to sell at Canadian prices only.

    Fortunately, the drug companies make their returns on the American market. They then sell to Canada because of the principle of marginal utility.

    The result is that American consumers bear most of the cost of R&D. Without the price-control free American market, the drugs that Canada enjoys (and even ones they develop) would not be profitable enough to develop in the first place.

    If it were not for the US, there would either be far fewer prescription drugs, or Canada would have to pay more for its prescription drugs. That is what the above poster refers to.

    I do not know enough about the North American military-industrial complex to know if the same principle applies with defense spending.

    --

    omnia tua castra sunt nobis